Let me demonstrate this.body= The vessel I really hope none will dispute this one soul= The emotionspirit= The will

Can you give any examples of where one can manifest without both the others? How, for example, would I detach my emotion and send it off around the world to interact with someone?

Now I can see the "Spirit" as being a particular part of "Yahweh", that's fine. In the same way that we say "that Sean Connery, he has a magnetic personality". But nobody would ever consider that Connery could detach his "magneticness" and send it off to speak to people.

That's where the 3-in-1 argument fails, and where your analogy fails. Because at one and the same time, you want the 3 to all be aspects of the 1, AND want one of the three to be something so separate that it can be detached and "sacrificed". Push the analogy too far in one direction, and the other end falls apart - its why it only works if you don't think about it too hard or try to explain it.

What about Astral projection? I once save a friends life through an out of body experience. Since you like Science though. Many world governments have tried to harness this as a weapon of some sort. American government saw results. However, the success rate was to low to continue the program. Even a small success rate shows that Astral projection is possible.

not worth arguing really, Anfauglir, this harbinger is not a Christian. He's a Sabellian and a heretic. He also knows better than all the Christian theologians since the 1st century - or likes to think so. Really, he running his onw one man religion.

I am in no way a modalist nor do I have even slight leanings in this direction. I don't even know how you came up with this idea... any of them for that matter.

Logged

I can't help but look at those pages (human genome) and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God's mind.-Francis Collins lead scientist Human Genome project

not worth arguing really, Anfauglir, this harbinger is not a Christian. He's a Sabellian and a heretic. He also knows better than all the Christian theologians since the 1st century - or likes to think so. Really, he running his onw one man religion.

I am in no way a modalist nor do I have even slight leanings in this direction. I don't even know how you came up with this idea... any of them for that matter.

Maybe, but your posts apoint that way and you don't see that keen on the Trinity as defined by Nicea and Chalcedon. What would you say you are then?

Logged

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

I'll try this one. Although there are many Christians that discuss the same thing. Many That don't get it. Denominations have formed and split over this very question. I doubt I can make any of you understand. It's a tough concept. I have to admit I don't understand how it works, but the bible teaches it so I accept it. Anyway, here goes. 3in one and one in 3. Jesus is both God AND The Son of God. John 1:1 in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. john 1:14 The Word became flesh that He may dwell among us.Jesus is The Word. The son is the Son. The Father is the Father. Yet both are God. they are separate and distinct individuals. The word was/is both with God and IS God.I could share and compare other verses if this is a topic you truly wish to understand. true or not is up to you of course.

Maybe this passed by and you didn't notice it. I would add The Holy Spirit is also The Holy Spirit separate and distinct individual. Yet also IS God. all three share the same will and nature

This thread questions The position of Jesus in the Godhead. I guess naturally that took us into the trinity though. I was really addressing The original question though.

Logged

I can't help but look at those pages (human genome) and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God's mind.-Francis Collins lead scientist Human Genome project

Let me demonstrate this.body= The vessel I really hope none will dispute this one soul= The emotionspirit= The will

Can you give any examples of where one can manifest without both the others? How, for example, would I detach my emotion and send it off around the world to interact with someone?

Now I can see the "Spirit" as being a particular part of "Yahweh", that's fine. In the same way that we say "that Sean Connery, he has a magnetic personality". But nobody would ever consider that Connery could detach his "magneticness" and send it off to speak to people.

That's where the 3-in-1 argument fails, and where your analogy fails. Because at one and the same time, you want the 3 to all be aspects of the 1, AND want one of the three to be something so separate that it can be detached and "sacrificed". Push the analogy too far in one direction, and the other end falls apart - its why it only works if you don't think about it too hard or try to explain it.

What about Astral projection? I once save a friends life through an out of body experience. Since you like Science though. Many world governments have tried to harness this as a weapon of some sort. American government saw results. However, the success rate was to low to continue the program. Even a small success rate shows that Astral projection is possible.

I am calling bullshit here, i agree that out of body experiences happen (mostly on drugs), but to use one for "spies" makes no sense, as you would still only see/know/whatever, what you already know.

Logged

Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

Well, I read the link. It said "lots of information on the experiments", but declined to actually give any links itself. So I googled a bit, and found lots of "puff" about the "Indigo Swann" mentioned, but (thus far) no links to any of the double-blind controlled experiments that (I'm sure) were carried out. If you can link me to any of the actual research papers, I will gladly take a look.

Let me demonstrate this.body= The vessel I really hope none will dispute this one soul= The emotionspirit= The will

Can you give any examples of where one can manifest without both the others? How, for example, would I detach my emotion and send it off around the world to interact with someone?

Now I can see the "Spirit" as being a particular part of "Yahweh", that's fine. In the same way that we say "that Sean Connery, he has a magnetic personality". But nobody would ever consider that Connery could detach his "magneticness" and send it off to speak to people.

That's where the 3-in-1 argument fails, and where your analogy fails. Because at one and the same time, you want the 3 to all be aspects of the 1, AND want one of the three to be something so separate that it can be detached and "sacrificed". Push the analogy too far in one direction, and the other end falls apart - its why it only works if you don't think about it too hard or try to explain it.

What about Astral projection? I once save a friends life through an out of body experience. Since you like Science though. Many world governments have tried to harness this as a weapon of some sort. American government saw results. However, the success rate was to low to continue the program. Even a small success rate shows that Astral projection is possible.

Yeah, and what about teleportation too? Not to mention magic spells, I have a friend saved my life once through casting Tenser's Magnificent Shield.

Is this SERIOUSLY your rebuttal? Astral projection exists, therefore Yahweh and Jesus a re separate but the same?

I gave you a tangible scenario where we can see 3 parts of one woman in conflict. I was then asked for an example as to how "sean connery's magnetic personality can separate and visit someone" I suggested astrol projection. I gave a personal testimony AND backed it up with a hasty link. I wasn't thinking burden of proof. Only provoke the thought. I'll try to remember this in the future.

I was only attempting to demonstrate something tangible AND earthly that we may use to describe something that is 3in1.

Anyway, after one google search I have this link with double blind university credited evidence.The question was fair and has been addressed by science.

This helps us to gather information about what is actually happening (scientifically-speaking) behind the scenes. And as a result of the later experiments with such Astral Travel and Remote Viewing, here is what Stanford Research Institute (SRI) scientists R. Targ and H. Puthoff concluded following experiments conducted with Uri Geller:

â€œGeller was successful in obtaining information under conditions in which no persons were knowledgeable of the target.â€?

And, with reference to other similar experiments...

â€œThe probability of this occurring by chance is approximately one in 10 to the power 6.â€?(Information Transmission under Conditions of Sensory Shielding. Nature: October 1974)

Logged

I can't help but look at those pages (human genome) and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God's mind.-Francis Collins lead scientist Human Genome project

To be clear: what I am after are direct links to the body of the alleged research, so that I can read the methodologies used, and how they eliminated the possibility for fraud.

And - to be blunt - I would like to see the studies done in the last quarter of a century that supports the claims - not examples from the 70s and 80s when the equipment used was a heck of a lot less advanced than we have today. I want to see the exact measurements taken. I want to see the processes by which they checked what they found.

To digress.....last year I went to see Derren Brown. He did a number of things that looked just like psychic abilities. But he is quite clear that it was all bogus. I want to read the clear methodologies of these studies to see how they eliminated any chance that people like Geller and Swann were using magician's tricks to fool them.

The Astral travel site is about selling a book and DVDs. It does not have anthing like a demonstration that it works. We would need to see an article in Nature or a similar publication to take it seriously.

Logged

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Whybnot do the same? show me it's bunk. If you wish to be convinced of it then look into it. Why should one side do all the home work? Find the book(s) the site quotes. I am only presenting the possibility that it happens. I think to explore it further is dodging the real topic. A tangible example of the trinity. scientists have studied astrol projection. and written papers and books. world governments have tried to use it as a weapon. there is no doubt that you can't dissmiss it 100% Apparently a couple of scientists concluded this:

Conclusions of double-blind Astral Travel experimentsIn 1977, Targ and Puthoff published a book entitled Mind Reach in which they presented the results oftheir remote viewing experiments. They also evaluated the ways in which remote viewing could be put topractical use. They listed:(a) Survival value â€” many spontaneous OBE's occur at the time of a serious accident, injury or duringsurgery. â€œIt is in primarily life-threatening situations that exceptional spontaneous functioning seems to occur.â€?(b) Executive ESP â€” use of remote viewing and other anomalous abilities in the business world;(c) Futuristic predictions ;(d) Medical diagnosis ; and(e) Space exploration.(Puthoff, Harold E., and Russell Targ. Mind-Reach: Scientists Look at Psychic Ability. New York: DelacortePress, 1977)From these and other experiments Targ and Puthoff concluded that:â€œ- A channel exists whereby information about a remote location can be obtained by means of an as yet unidentified perceptual modality.

I think I have done exactly what I set out to do. It's your turn. Thank you.

Logged

I can't help but look at those pages (human genome) and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God's mind.-Francis Collins lead scientist Human Genome project

The reason why you can't relate the trinity to things here on earth is because we don't have any "squared circles" here in this "dimension" on earth. The reason why the doctrine of the trinity is impossible to completely understand is because it is contradictory. For instance, if you think Jesus is claiming to be the "I AM" (Yahweh) then Jesus is claiming that there is no God besides him (Is. 44:6-8). And then the resurrected Jesus says in John 20:17 that He has a God. This is a contradiction.

It's better, in my opinion, to not relate the trinity to things on earth because we don't have contradictions like this in the "real world". It's better to just throw out the "trump" card and say that the Trinity is a mystery.

Jesus is saying there is no God except Him. But He also said that "I and the Father are One". So He isn't contradicting Himself if you understand the trinity is a possibility outside of our earthly dimension.

If Jesus is saying there is no God except Him then why does he say he has a God in John 20:17? By Jesus saying "I and the Father are ONE" is not clearly stating that Jesus is ONE BEING with the one true God. John 17:22 says, "The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be ONE, Just as we are ONE; I in them and You in Me that they may be perfected in unity". So with this logic I'm supposed to believe that the disciples are literally ONE BEING just like you think Jesus and his Father are ONE BEING.

Even the titles in the trinity contradict with the definition of the trinity. The title SON implies that he was descended from his FATHER. It would follow then that the Father and Son can't be co-eternal like the definition of the trinity suggests. Another contradiction! If God wanted me to think that the Father and Son were co-eternal with one another, why would he call the second person of the trinity the Son which means "a descendent"? Is God just messing with the minds of people? Or maybe people got the concept of the nature of the Godhead wrong. Or another thought is maybe this God doesn't even exist.

My guess is that He is called the Son, because He came to earth from heaven and was forever changed. Before that, He was always with God as it says in John 1. Christian belief is that Jesus has a resurrected body that is capable of living in heaven and manifesting here on earth as He did in the upper room. A body that all believers will have someday.

That's a good guess but I think you are wrong according to the bible. The Son was called Son BEFORE "He came to earth from heaven and was forever changed". Prov. 30:4 states, "Who has ascended into heaven and descended? Who has gathered the wind in His fists? Who has wrapped the waters in His garmet? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is His name or His SON'S name"? (c.f. John 17:5).

There is very convincing evidence out there (for an open mind) that Jesus was not claiming the title of "I AM" in John 8:58. There is an excellent book out called, "Truth in Translation" by Jason David BeDuhn. I will type out the two pages of his book for you that makes a convincing counter-argument so you don't have to buy the book. He looks into the Greek text and "textually" makes a great case in my opinion. However, I don't want to take the time if you are not interested in the opposing view. Just let me know.

Yes, I'm always interested in the opposing view. Feel free to send it to me or link it somehow. Thanks

Great, here's Jason De BeDuhn's arguments along with some of my own. WARNING: To those Christians who could care less if Jesus claimed the divine name/title ("I AM"/Yahweh) in John 8:58---QUIT READING NOW!!! This is only for those like Patrick Henry who are "always interested in the opposing view". This gets "scholarly" and requires some "homework" to those who are really interested in wanting to know the truth behind the "I AM" statement in John 8:58. This is time consuming!!!

For Christians, the study of the "I AM" (EGO EIMI) is crucial. If you believe that Jesus is the "I AM" in John 8:58 then you have to believe that a person will "die in their sins" if they don't believe that Jesus is "I AM" (John 8:24). If a Christian believes that you have to believe that Jesus is the "I AM" of Exodus 3:14 then they allow the doctrine of the Trinity (or Binity) to overlap into the doctrine of salvation. And you want to get this right as a Christian because the GOSPEL is about salvation. If you have a different gospel than Paul then you are "accursed" in his eyes (Gal. 1:9).

As a former Christian, I always found it curious that Paul never said in any of his writings that one HAD TO BELIEVE that Jesus was Yahweh. I always wondered if Paul would think that John is "accursed" because John said that people would "die in their sins" if they didn't believe Jesus was the "I AM" of the Old Testament. This requirement is absent from all of Paul's writings.

In addition, Jesus says, "...have you not read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the burning bush, how God spoke to him saying, 'I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob" (Mark 12:26)? The writer of the book of Mark seems to be excluding Jesus from being the God speaking at the burning bush as it seems like Jesus is speaking of someone else besides himself. If Jesus wanted people to believe that He was the entity speaking at the burning bush the verse would say, "In the passage about the burning bush I spoke to Moses saying...". So it seemed to me like this passage in Mark contradicted John 8:58. In addition, I thought it was odd that Mark never mentioned anything about Jesus being the one true God in his entire gospel.

I witnessed to many people while I was a Christian and I never mentioned to any of the possible converts that they had to believe that Jesus was Yahweh in order to be saved. Was I leaving out a crucial element to salvation? I only told people they had to believe Jesus was the Christ, the Son OF God. I started researching and I came across Jason David BeDuhn's book and found a lot of his arguments convincing concerning the understanding of John 8:58.

First, let's start our journey by getting two opposing views concerning the understanding of the "I AM" (GREEK - EGO EIMI). First you must understand that different English translators and bibles translate John 8:58 differently.

It is generally considered, for example by Daniel B. Wallace,[15] that if that the intention of John was to state "I was" then the text should instead contain the corresponding past tense form is ego en "I was", as in English and elsewhere in the New Testament.

William F. Beck, Lutheran - The New Testament in the Language of Today (St. Louis, 1963). “I was in existence before Abraham was ever born”

Kenneth N. Taylor, The Living Bible (Wheaton, 1979). “I am from before Abraham was born!”

The poet Richard Lattimore, The Four Gospels and the Revelation (New York, 1979). “I existed before Abraham was born”

ed. Stanley L. Morris, The Simple English Bible (1981) "I was alive before Abraham was born"

So....the people who translate the divine name in past tense are possesed by Satan and want to "twist scripture" and teach demonic doctrines right? All these translations are from Christian Heretics or, better yet, Satan himself right?

Well, let's investigate. In my opinion, Jason De BeDuhn makes some great arguments concerning this issue. I will give you some of his arguments from chapter 10 of his book "Truth in Translation". Sorry wheels, I don't have a scanner. I would love to write the entirety of chapter 10 in this post but will have to just "highlight" his main argument(s). BeDuhn goes into more detail and I will try to answer any questions concerning this issue if I didn't give enough information in my (and BeDuhn's) argument against Jesus claiming to be Yahweh in John 8:58.

BeDuhn starts off saying that John 8:58 is an " awkward, ungrammatical rendering" of the "I AM" claim in all of the Trinitarian translations of the bible.

In John 8:58, "What Jesus says here is fine, idiomatic Greek. It can be rendered straightforwardly into English by doing what translators always do with Greek, namely, rearrange the word order into normal English order, and adjust things like verbal tense complementarity into proper English expression. These steps of translation are necessary because Greek and English are not the same language and do not obey the same rules of grammar. Leaving the translation at the stage of a lexical ("interlinear") rendering, which is one way to describe what most translations do here simply won't work. That is because Greek has more flexibility with word order than English does, and it can mix verbal tenses in a way English cannot. On the matter of word order, normal English follows the structure we all learned in elementary school: subject + verb + object or predicate phrase. The order of the Greek in John 8:58 is: predicate phrase + subject + verb. So it is the most basic step of translation to move the predicate phrase "before Abraham came to be" from the beginning of the sentence to the end, after the subject and verb".

In other words it is not proper English to say, "Patrick Henry I am".

To get a good idea that Greek is in a mangled word order compared to English just view the verse just before 8:57. It sounds like Yoda is talking. Also, click one verse ahead on this link to look at the first part of John 8:58. The word order is mangled.

BeDuhn goes on to say, "When verb tenses or any other part of grammar is used in a way outside of usual expectations, we call it an "idiom". Because Greek idioms are different from English idioms, translators do not translate these expressions word-for-word, but rather convey the meaning of the Greek idiom in proper comprehensible English. At least, thats what translators are supposed to do."

BeDuhn argues, "Why would translators, whose job it is to make the Bible into comprehensible, good quality English, choose an awkward, ungrammatical rendering instead? Why do Bible translations which in thousands of other verses freely change word order relative to the original Greek, suddenly find a reason to follow exactly the Greek, producing an ungrammatical and syntactically strained sentence, in this instance? The answer is theological bias."

"In John 8:58, since Jesus' existence is not completed past action, but ongoing we must use some sort of imperfect verbal form to convey that : 'I have been (since) before Abraham come to be.' That's as close as we can get to what the Greek says in our own language if we pay attention to all parts of the sentence."

"Translating back from English into Greek is one way to see if a translation has been faithful to the original. There is never any indication that Jesus is quoting 'I am'. "

He says that translators are familiar with this idiomatic aspect of Greek verbs, because they usually translate such expressions accurately into correct English and he gives some examples. One example he provides you is John 14:9. Part of the verse reads in Greek "…tosouto chrono meth hymn eimi…" (So long a time with you am I). All major translations change the word order and verb tense to translate this expression accurately into "correct English". The King James says "…Have I been so long time with you…".

"In both of these passages most of the modern translations translate the present tense form of 'to be' ('I am';'you are') as 'HAVE BEEN' because of its relation to an expression of past time. This is exactly the same grammatical construct as found in 8:58."

In addition, BeDuhn says, "One passage usually missing from the discussion of the expression 'I am' in the Gospel according to John is John 9:9. In this expression 'I am' in the gospel according to John is John 9:9. in this verse, the words EGO EIMI are heard from the mouth NOT of Jesus, but of a blind man cured by Jesus. He, too, uses the words to say 'I AM', the man who before was blind, but have been cured. If anyone needs proof that EGO EIMI need not be a quote from the Old Testament, and is not reserved as a title of God, here it is."

"Once again, our attention is drawn to inconsistency in how words are handled by biased translators. If EGO EIMI is not a divine self-proclamation in the mouth of the blind man of John 9, then it cannot be such a proclamation in the mouth of Jesus just a few verses earlier. None of the modern Trinitarian translations , of course, have the blind man saying 'I am,' let alone 'I AM'. According to the reasoning of those who insist that the phrase must be understood as a declaration of divine identity, and so preserved in its 'interlinear' form, the blind man is also GOD. John 9:9 is a clear example of the idiomatic use of the expression EGO EIMI in Greek speech."

"In John 8:58, most all translations break the first-person-pronoun + verb ("I am") clause out of its relation to the syntax of the sentence, and place it artificially, and ungrammatically, at the end of the English sentence."

"These modern translations violate their standard practice of using correct English word order by in this case slavishly following the Greek word order."

In other words, most modern translations (which are Trinitarian), "ignore the true relation between the verbs of the sentence and produce a sentence that makes no sense in English. These changes in the meaning of the Greek and in the normal procedure for translation point to a bias that has interfered with the work of the translators."

"It is natural to assume that the majority of translations are correct and the odd ones at fault. It is only when translations are checked against the original Greek, as they should be, that a fair assessment van be made, and the initial assumption can be seen to be wrong."

BeDuhn concludes, "It is Jesus' claim to be superior to Abraham, and to have a superhuman longevity, not a claim to a divine self-designation, that enrages his audience. Jesus' argument in 8:58 is that he has seniority over Abraham, and so by the standards of Jewish society, he has greater authority than the patriarch."

BeDuhn argues that the Living Bible which is actually a "paraphrase" Bible actually translates John 8:58 from Greek to English most accurate: "I was in existence before Abraham was ever born".

So is Jesus saying in John 8:58 that He just existed before Abraham??? As a skeptic, I wanted to find more evidence as to how John 8:58 is/was supposed to be interpreted. So I turned to the early Church Fathers. Two examples:

2.) Athanasius (major supporter and proponent of the Trinity at the council of Nicaea 325 AD. I did not expect to find this quote from such a staunch Trinitarian. I could not believe that he did not say that Jesus was claiming the divine title for the one true God. Instead, he seems to agree with BeDuhn's assessment of the correct translation of John 8:58. Out of all the early Church Fathers, I would expect the Trinitarian Athanasius to say that Jesus is claiming to be Yahweh here and make the connection from the "I am" statement in John 8:58 to Exodus 3:14 - the meaning of the tetragrammaton. But he doesn't!) (Discourse IV "Against the Arians" Chapter 20):

"And they will be compelled to say that through the Man Himself the world came into being, and that the Man was He who came not to judge the world but to save it; and that He it was who was in being before Abraham came to be. For, says Scripture, Jesus said to them, ‘Verily, verily, I say unto you, before Abraham was, I am.’ And is it not absurd to say, as they do, that one who came of the seed of Abraham after two and forty generations, should exist before Abraham came to be?"

All John 8:58 seems to be proving is the pre-existence of Jesus and it is evident to me that early apologists who were reading the text in Greek had no idea of this alleged claim to be YHWH.

It is my opinion based on the evidence that Jesus was not claiming to be the "entity Moses encountered in Ex. 3:14 (Thus dost thou say to the sons of Isreal, I AM hath sent me unto you.)" First, it is a reach to translate the transliterated Hebrew word "HAYAH" to "I AM".

I just went BlueLetterBible.org and found this out for myself. (Hebrew word HAYAH - strongs #1961). THIS WAS SHOCKING TO ME!

This word "hayah" appears in 72 verses and why is it only translated as "I AM" in Exodus 3:14? This seems to me like more theological translational bias. If the word in Ex. 3:14 was the Hebrew word, "ANI" (strongs #589) which is translated as "am" many times in the Old Textament then I would be somewhat convinced that there is a connection to the "I am" in John 8:58.

In studying Ex. 3:14 I found the "meaning" of the tetragrammaton has been variously interpreted. Some meanings or translations to YHWH in Exodus 3:14 can be: "I will be that I will be", "I will be that which I now am", "I will become whatsoever I please", "I shall prove to be what I shall prove to be", "I am the Being", "I am the Existing One", "He brings into existence whatever exists", and of course, "I am who I am". It's definitely a little suspicious to me that our Trinitarian translators of our Bibles would use this last meaning to make a connection, in my opinion, to John 8:58. In my studies, I found that the "meaning" and translation to Yahweh in Ex. 3:14 is ambiguous. Conclusion: It seems to me that bias is interfering with translation!

Furthermore, the Septuagint which was used by some New Testament authors translated this phrase in Ex. 3:14 as "ego eimi HO ON" (I am THE BEING). The Septuagint goes on to read "Thus dost thou say to the sons of Israel, THE BEING (HO ON) hath sent me unto you." So for me to be even somewhat convinced that Jesus is trying to connect Himself to the phrase in Ex. 3:14 then He would have had to say, "Before Abraham was, THE BEING (HO ON)". Instead the Greek words EGO EIMI are used here in John 8:58.

(Link showing Septuagint uses the Greek words HO ON instead of EGO EIMI in Exodus 3:14: "...HO ON (not EGO EIMI) has sent me to you" ---- Translated: "...THE BEING (not I AM) has sent me to you")

Patrick Henry, you said in post #55 of this thread, "I think that 'I AM' is a title with an understanding that it means God has always existed. It would seem important to understand that for a clear belief in God. Jesus thought it was important that He be understood in that way. Since He announced it."

What is obvious to me is that the correct understanding of the "I AM" statement in John 8:58 is not only important for a Christians' understanding of who Jesus is/was but also important for salvation. The correct understanding of the "I AM" statement has an influence on a person's view on salvation. John 8:24 states, "...unless you believe that I AM, you will die in your sins". Does one have to believe that Jesus is the "I AM" of the Old Testament in order to be saved? Are all the people involved in these Christian groups (below) who are non-Trinitarian and do not believe that Jesus is the "I AM" of the Old Testament going to "die in their sins" for not believing that Jesus is the "I AM" of the Old Testament?

American Unitarian Conference Arianism Bible Students Christadelphians Church of Christ, Scientist (Christian Scientists)[106][107] The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) Church of the Blessed Hope (sometimes called "Church of God of the Abrahamic Faith") Doukhobors Friends of Man Iglesia ni Cristo (Church of Christ) Israelite Church of God in Jesus Christ Jehovah's Witnesses Members Church of God International Molokan Monarchianism Muggletonianism New Church Many members of the Non-subscribing Presbyterian Church of Ireland Oneness Pentecostals Polish Brethren Some Quakers Shakers Socinianism Swedenborgianism The Way International True Jesus Church Two by Twos (sometimes called The Truth or Cooneyites)[108] Unification Church Unitarian Christians Unitarian Universalism United Church of God

Well Patrick Henry, I would hate for you to live your whole life thinking you have the right view of salvation as a Christian and then end up being "accursed" because you didn't have the correct understanding of the "I AM" in John 8. Should it be translated as a title for Yahweh or just a verb? I would appreciate your feedback. Was any of this convincing to you? Do you have any arguments against? I think you now know why I, personally, have a problem with people saying "clear" and "scripture" in the same sentence. In this case it is a problem with translating Hebrew and Greek into proper English.

If those darn people wouldn't have built a tall tower in Babel (Gen. 11) we wouldn't have this problem as we would all be speaking the same language right?

What about all the skeptics out there. Did you manage to wade through all these tedious, scholarly arguments? Are these arguments convincing?

Let's say you Wheels. Did Jesus claim the divine self-designation (the Tetragrammaton) in John 8 or not? I know I know, it's probably more plausible that this God that says he is not a God of confusion (1 Cor. 14:33) doesn't exist but let's pretend he's real. Arguments for or against?

Logged

"The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the greatest miseries, that have afflicted the human race, have had their origin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion."~Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason)

Well that is an interesting discussion on a couple of words - but these words are important to many people as evidenced by the fact that so many translations continue with the translation that looks so odd.

I started out with A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament by Bruce Metzger which is a companion volume to the Bible Societies 3rd edition Greek New Testament. It goes through the whole NT listing problem verses and explaining decisions taken with the text. The first thing to establish is if there are variation in the Greek Text. There is nothing listed and the Greek Text inself has nothing significant in the apparatus. So, our Greek is correct.

There is nothing in the text that requires the present tense in the Greek to be translated into the present tense in English. The only odd thing is that the present tense is there - the imperfect tense would carry the same meaning in Greek - a continuing state. However, the Septuagint (LXX) reading of Exodus 3:6 this early Greek translation of the OT has[1]

Note the ego eimi. The author of the Gospel could well have either read the text of had it the text to hand when writing and so might have had the text in mind and made a deliberate copy to emphasise his point about the divinity of Jesus. He might.... but the trouble is the 'ego eimi' is not the tetragramaton and doesn't sound like it so it might have been a risky move in the sense that many would not have got the link.

So, all in all, I can't see why we do not have the translation such as the Living Bible's "I was in existence before Abraham was ever born". or something along those lines. I think I would prefer 'I existed before Abraham was born' but that's picking at a perfectly good reading.

Now whether this detracts from the Trinitarian view of god is open to discussion. It seems clear that the church was convinced of Jesus' divinity on the basis of his rising from death and his ascension. (It doesn't matter if these really happened.) So there is enough texts to support this view and to agree the Nicean and Chalcedon creeds and losing this one verse is hardly likely to change this.

Whybnot do the same? show me it's bunk. If you wish to be convinced of it then look into it. Why should one side do all the home work?

Because YOU are the one making the claim. All you have done so far is said "astral travel exists, some guys say so in a BOOK!!" I doubt you have read the book - fact, I'm sure you haven't, otherwise instead of quoting the conclusions from one of the astral-promoting websites, you'd have answered the actual questions I had about methodology. And since you haven't bothered to critically examine the claim you are making, I see no reason I should do your work for you.

Tell you what Harbinger - yeti exist. I read a BOOK that said so. And it was on a website too, that sold MORE books about yeti!! Now....do you accept they exist? If not, who do you think should be the one to present the evidence? The person making the unsubstantiated claim, or the person they are trying to convince?

Let me demonstrate this.body= The vessel I really hope none will dispute this one soul= The emotionspirit= The will

I have been helping with a female friend of mine who is finally leaving an abusive relationship. All to common. I use this because it is what came to me and unfortunately I think at least most of us can relate to it.

The abused woman is beat (body/The vessel) by her so called man. She knows if she stays there that things may get worse. she may even end up dead. She wants to leave him. (will/soul) However due to feelings of helplessness, fear, and inadequacy, and perhaps the worst "I love him" (spirit/ The emotion) she goes against her own will and stays with him, even if it means the destruction of her body.

I think if we spit ball this we could come up with many examples to demonstrate the will is often separate and even in conflict with emotions. sometimes even to the destruction of our own body.

Thus you have 3 "things" that make you one, and because of the conflict that often appears we can make the case these are all separate parts of your oneness.Let me also use this opportunity to say when a Christian says The lord has shown, spoken, revealed whatever it is. This is an example. Something deep hit my soul out of the blue. A deeper thought than what is mine. I wasn't even thinking about it. It even came with a scripture reference. For me the explanation is the wisdom of God. For you (generally speaking) it's just a chemical reaction of the subconscious mind.

Harbinger77, this is classic! If the CONTRADICTING God of the Bible exists then I would not be surprised that he "showed, spoke, or revealed" this analogy to you. This might be an eye opener to you as you will see first hand why I reject the bible as authoritative.

Here is a comparison for you: I reject the bible as authoritative just like I reject Harbinger77's analogy/explanation of the Trinity because BOTH ACCOUNTS HAVE CONTRADICTORY INFORMATION IN THEM. In your demonstration you say the soul = emotion and the spirit = the will. Then in your example of the abused woman the spirit = emotion and the soul = the will. Which is it? Is the soul the emotion or the will?

Just like I reject the notion that God "showed, spoke, or revealed" anything to the writers of the bible because of all the contradictions that are present; I also reject the notion that God revealed you this "wisdom" because of your contradictions.

By the way, how can I believe that God "showed, spoke, or revealed" this to you when it goes against his revealed word (the bible). According to John 6:38 the second person of the trinity has a SEPARATE WILL than the first person of the trinity. So your analogy should be spirit = the WILLS or the soul = the WILLS which ever one it is. John 6:38 says, "For I have come down from heaven, not to do MY OWN WILL, but the WILL OF HIM WHO SENT ME.

As a former fundamentalist Christian, I believed that I too had revealed knowledge from Yahweh at times. However, if this revealed knowledge went against scripture, I used to believe it was revealed to me by Satan. I think your analogy was revealed to you by Satan. Harbinger77, TEST THE SPIRITS!!! (1 John 4:1).

On a separate note, according to Jesus you are supposed to tell this abused woman to stay with the abusive husband. Jesus only gives ONE exception to the requirement of staying married and that is fornication (Matt. 5:32 and 19:9). My morality (and possibly yours) is greater than Jesus' because I would add abusiveness (especially physical) to the list of exceptions. In my opinion, someone who says they must stay with a spouse if they are being physically (or severely emotionally) abused is a MASSIVE TURD. Jesus should have at least added this as another exception to the requirement of staying married. But lets stay on topic.

Harbinger77, don't expect most people to believe that God "showed, spoke or revealed" this to you? I would have kept this to yourself. If God did "reveal" this through His "wisdom" to you then he is a MASSIVE TURD in that he would allow you to write something so contradictory. It was a good try Harbinger77 but my analogy captures the TRUE ESSENCE of the Trinitarian God better than yours. My analogy is at the end of post #42 of this thread.

Yes, I do think this was just a "chemical reaction" to your "subconscious mind". However, if you think that God "revealed" this to you then I think this "subconscious mind" of yours is a bit delusional. However, I don't think delusion is a disease that can't be cured. I think you can overcome delusion by taking a few pills coated with reason.

As for astral projection, I have found all this evidence of yours to be extremely anecdotal and unconvincing. I think that those who claim to have experienced being out of their bodies may be OUT OF THEIR MINDS! For instance, Paul may or may not have been in his body in his vision (2 Cor. 12:2-4) but I conclude, with some degree of certainty, that he was OUT OF HIS MIND!

Until better evidence is presented to me, I cannot believe people are gullible enough to believe in astral travel.

But then again, whoever can worship a Trinity and insist that his religion is a monotheism can believe anything.

By the way, I hope you had a good Christmas!

Logged

"The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the greatest miseries, that have afflicted the human race, have had their origin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion."~Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason)

The others have put this very well already but let me just ask you this?

You proposed the astrl-travel might exist and pointed us to a website. As it turns out, that webiste was more concerned with selling a book than analysing the evidence either way. Now I don't think there is any such thing as astral-travel even though it appears that you do. Now, how would I go about proving it was false to you. I would have to read every book ever written on the subject, check out all the claims ever made on the subject and even then it could still exist as the one person who managed it hasn't yet published. It is no feasible for anyone to do this in a way that would even convince a non-believer.

You, on the other hand, Harbinger, are prefectly placed to show us why you think it exists. You must think so for a perectly good reason and based on some sort of evidence but all you do is a link to a dodgy commercial, website. You can do better than that so, come on, let's see what persuaded you.

(As a side note - isn't a Christian suppose to persue the kindom of god and not get sidetracked with other beliefs?)

Logged

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

You, on the other hand, Harbinger, are prefectly placed to show us why you think it exists. You must think so for a perectly good reason.....

Actually, his "reason" is that he was desperately searching for something in the real world to use as a parallel for the Trinity. And since the only thing he could find was astral projection, he HAS to accept it without evidence in order to "prove" his prior assertion.

You, on the other hand, Harbinger, are prefectly placed to show us why you think it exists. You must think so for a perectly good reason.....

Actually, his "reason" is that he was desperately searching for something in the real world to use as a parallel for the Trinity. And since the only thing he could find was astral projection, he HAS to accept it without evidence in order to "prove" his prior assertion.

Ah... that explains it!

Logged

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

"The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the greatest miseries, that have afflicted the human race, have had their origin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion."~Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason)

Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

Well that is an interesting discussion on a couple of words - but these words are important to many people as evidenced by the fact that so many translations continue with the translation that looks so odd.

I agree. The words "I AM" are important to many people "as evidenced by the fact that so many translations continue with the translation that looks so odd". The words are important to the majority of Christian translators and the majority of Christian translators are Trinitarian.

It seems apparent to me that most of the modern Christian translations (which are Trinitarian) are under the influence of the Trinitarian KJV which was translated by Trinitarian translators. However, these modern Trinitarian translations violate the standard practice of using correct English word order by following the Greek word order in John 8:58. I say this stinks of translational bias.

There is nothing in the text that requires the present tense in the Greek to be translated into the present tense in English. The only odd thing is that the present tense is there - the imperfect tense would carry the same meaning in Greek - a continuing state. However, the Septuagint (LXX) reading of Exodus 3:6 this early Greek translation of the OT has[1]

Sorry, tried posting the Greek text but it all changes to question marks when posted.

It's O.K. If you did post the Greek text of Exodus 3:6 my response would have been ???????????? because I can't read Greek. I looked at the link but I am confused. Can you explain the Septuagint reading of Exodus 3:6. Are you saying the verb "am" of this verse of the Septuagint is seen as present tense or imperfect tense (a continuing state)? I don't know if this is an argument for or against BeDuhn. The transition word "However" threw me off.

Note the ego eimi. The author of the Gospel could well have either read the text of had it the text to hand when writing and so might have had the text in mind and made a deliberate copy to emphasise his point about the divinity of Jesus. He might.... but the trouble is the 'ego eimi' is not the tetragramaton and doesn't sound like it so it might have been a risky move in the sense that many would not have got the link.

Right. The EGO EIMI is not the tetragrammaton (YHWH) but the "meaning/expression" of the tetragrammaton. I believe the literal English rendering of the Greek EGO EIMI as "I am" happened to sound like the King James English rendering of something said by God in the Old Testament and the translators made the link.

However, like I said earlier, "I AM" is a very uncertain rendering of the Hebrew word HAYAH in Exodus 3:14. In addition, HO ON is found in the Septuagint and not EGO EIMI in Exodus 3:14. I don't think any of John's readers would have gotten the link anytime soon after his writing. I believe it is the modern Trinitarian translators that make the link to the Old Testament.

Now whether this detracts from the Trinitarian view of god is open to discussion. It seems clear that the church was convinced of Jesus' divinity on the basis of his rising from death and his ascension. (It doesn't matter if these really happened.) So there is enough texts to support this view and to agree the Nicean and Chalcedon creeds and losing this one verse is hardly likely to change this.

I don't know if this detracts from the Trinitarian view of God so much if you "lose" this one verse. However, if you believe that John 8:58 shows that Jesus is the one true God then you also have to transfer this belief over to John 8:24. And John 8:24 is the only verse in the whole bible that makes it a REQUIREMENT to believe that Jesus is Yahweh FOR SALVATION. If you "lose" this one verse (John 8:58) then at least it would not be a REQUIREMENT for salvation to believe that Jesus is actually the same being as his father.

So, for Christians, I would say that this one verse (John 8:58) is not so important for the doctrine of the Trinity; but I would say getting this one verse right is important for the Christian doctrine of salvation (whatever that is).

Logged

"The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the greatest miseries, that have afflicted the human race, have had their origin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion."~Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason)

Sorry, Any, I didn't make it quite clear. The LXX (Greek OT) translates the 'YHWH' from Hebrew to 'ego eimi', Greek, the 'I AM' of this John verse we are looking at. So if John had the LXX, or knew it, we could consider John was using the name of god at that verse. The meaning would not be different if he had used the imperfect tense in Greek but John uses the present.

So, I can see how people consider this a reference to the name of god and thus why it is thus translated. It is not so much a trinitarian bias as reflecting the fact that John was probably thinking of the name of god in Greek. I still think I would translate as we have mentioned, though, and put the reference as a foot note.

I'm away for a few days so won't be back in touch until next week now.

Logged

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Sorry, Any, I didn't make it quite clear. The LXX (Greek OT) translates the 'YHWH' from Hebrew to 'ego eimi', Greek, the 'I AM' of this John verse we are looking at. So if John had the LXX, or knew it, we could consider John was using the name of god at that verse. The meaning would not be different if he had used the imperfect tense in Greek but John uses the present.

Still confused. I don't see the tetragrammaton ('YHWH') in Exodus 3:6.

"The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the greatest miseries, that have afflicted the human race, have had their origin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion."~Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason)

Reply to Andy S. I may be breaking protocol....not sure. I will try to address your previous (long) post in sections. I will not be able to do it all at once since time doesn't allow me right now. I didn't want to use the website's quote feature because it seemed to clunky in this case because of the length. So will try it this way. Andy S. quote: "If Jesus is saying there is no God except Him then why does he say he has a God in John 20:17? By Jesus saying "I and the Father are ONE" is not clearly stating that Jesus is ONE BEING with the one true God. John 17:22 says, "The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be ONE, Just as we are ONE; I in them and You in Me that they may be perfected in unity". So with this logic I'm supposed to believe that the disciples are literally ONE BEING just like you think Jesus and his Father are ONE BEING".

Patrick Henry (PH) answer -As it says in Phillipians 2 (Jesus)......."emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men". Since there is not a direct translation from Greek to English, there has to be contextual reading in order to come up with the doctrine of the Trinity. This doctrine is a mystery for sure. My understanding is that God is one God but three separate beings. Jesus is one in nature with God, but came to earth as a man. So He can claim that He is one with God in that He existed with God in the beginning during the creation event, He and God the Father are one in nature but positionally separate beings. Because they are separate beings, Jesus could leave heaven and come in human flesh, leaving His position in heaven and "humbling" Himself. In this way, Jesus "receives" glory from the Father because He humbled Himself like a man, and had to receive from the Father like we do. Jesus became our example that we are to follow. I don't really see the hang up with the "one being" statement if you see the Trinity as one in nature. This is why I tend to draw parallels here on earth. Because I think that Jesus does it for our understanding. If He is one with the Father and imparts a Spirit that allows Christians to become one with each other, their nature is changed in the sense that they have common belief, want to please God, love God, love each other. I think it harmonizes.

From Andy S. "That's a good guess but I think you are wrong according to the bible. The Son was called Son BEFORE "He came to earth from heaven and was forever changed". Prov. 30:4 states, "Who has ascended into heaven and descended? Who has gathered the wind in His fists? Who has wrapped the waters in His garmet? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is His name or His SON'S name"? (c.f. John 17:5)."

PH - . Good point. The Son who exists eternally, has probably always been the Son. But I can't be sure if that is a reference for the reader's understanding or if it how God wants us to view the Son pre-creation event or not. Talking about a Being who isn't bound by time creates all sorts of rabbit trails to go down. I do think that it's noteworthy that this old testament verse hints that God has a Son prior to the incarnation.

Andy - "For Christians, the study of the "I AM" (EGO EIMI) is crucial. If you believe that Jesus is the "I AM" in John 8:58 then you have to believe that a person will "die in their sins" if they don't believe that Jesus is "I AM" (John 8:24). If a Christian believes that you have to believe that Jesus is the "I AM" of Exodus 3:14 then they allow the doctrine of the Trinity (or Binity) to overlap into the doctrine of salvation. And you want to get this right as a Christian because the GOSPEL is about salvation. If you have a different gospel than Paul then you are "accursed" in his eyes (Gal. 1:9)".

PH -I think that it's very important to understand that Jesus is the Son of God (Deity). That He was sinless, that He was present in the creation with God, that they are One. All these things are crucial to understanding salvation. Will God save a person who doesn't completely understand these things? Well, let's just say that I don't think God saves only the intellectuals. It even seems that Jesus favored those who didn't have much. I think God will save those who believe in Christ as their redeemer and that person can measure where they are based on their own life. The bible talks about the "fruit" that comes from having the Spirit. So that is a good starting point to gauge oneself. I think about who is really saved and it's an interesting thing to talk about. But ultimately God judges us and I think that only Christ can justify us. We don't justify ourselves.

I've started reading Jason Be Duhn's work. Thanks. Will get back to you after some study.